|
Post by Fortwhile on Nov 16, 2017 6:55:00 GMT
Saint Ehm is currently the Speaker of the Assembly of All.
Saint Ehm has not fulfilled any of his constitutionally stated duties, including bringing things to a vote in the Assembly of All (I've had to do this on his behalf).
The only thing he has had time for is rabble-rousing about deposing myself and Prime Minister Bymaria. While we have chosen to not ban him for this, I do not think he should continue as Speaker of the Assembly. Especially as he has not done any of his job duties.
I move that the Parliament removes Saint Ehm. To be removed, we must achieve a 2/3rds majority vote of all MPs.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by germanempire on Nov 16, 2017 13:23:31 GMT
I most certainly agree that he did not fulfill his duties , but shouldn't the justices see if he was doing something wrong in in the name of the constitution and IF we have the law on our side doing this ?
|
|
|
Post by Fortwhile on Nov 16, 2017 14:55:03 GMT
I most certainly agree that he did not fulfill his duties , but shouldn't the justices see if he was doing something wrong in in the name of the constitution and IF we have the law on our side doing this ? The justices don't necessarily have anything to do with removal, as we are not seeking to charge him. If there are those in the region who /want/ to press charges, I strongly encourage those people to petition the courts!
|
|
|
Post by Lady Cari on Nov 16, 2017 15:01:13 GMT
The justices also are limited in the fact that we have no criminal code (a technicality I was hoping to remedy soon and may work on this weekend), so we cannot convict him of anything.
|
|
|
Post by germanempire on Nov 16, 2017 15:43:53 GMT
The justices also are limited in the fact that we have no criminal code (a technicality I was hoping to remedy soon and may work on this weekend), so we cannot convict him of anything. Thats what I meant , since we have no laws we cannot bring him to court and if we try to get him out of his Posting on those Charges it might be against the constitution, since we have no law against doing what he did .
|
|
|
Post by southernaurgediam on Nov 17, 2017 0:36:38 GMT
YES A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS FINALLY I CAN DO SOMETHING
*ahem* I mean,
This is my opinion on the matter:
This resolution charges that the honorable Speaker of the Assembly of All, Saint Ehm, has failed to uphold his constitutional duties. However, due to the lack of evidence provided, its assertions cannot be held as valid.
Article III, Section III, Clause 10 of the Constitution of the Union of Londinium states the following,
"The Speaker shall be charged with representing the interests of the Assembly in the Parliament and the Executive."
What this means practically is that the responsibilities of the Speaker extend solely to informing Parliament and the Executive of the actions and intent of the Assembly. This resolution offers no evidence that Saint Ehm has not fulfilled that particular duty, thus invalidating the assertion that, Saint Ehm has not fulfilled any of his constitutionally stated duties."
In addition, the resolution charges that, Saint Ehm has failed to uphold his constitutional duty to, "[bring] things to a vote in the Assembly of All." This assertion is invalid as well, as Article III, Section III, Clause 12 explicitly charges the executive with poll maintenance, stating,
"The Assembly will vote on legislation through use of the in-game poll system. The Executive shall be charged with maintaining the poll and with verifying results."
In conclusion, I respect the efforts of this Assembly to remove Saint Ehm as Speaker, however, there is (currently) a lack of evidence and legal basis to do so. I would rather Saint Ehm be removed for his inactivity and refusal to comment on bills submitted to the Assembly of All. Alternatively, if you can provide evidence that Saint Ehm has not represented the interests of the Assembly to the Executive, then you could provide a case before the courts to remove him, or develop a stronger argument to remove him in the legislature itself.
|
|
|
Post by United Barbaros on Nov 17, 2017 1:07:47 GMT
Saint Ehm did act against the Constitution as Speaker of the Assembly by calling for the deposition of the Monarch and Prime Minister on behalf of himself, and not in representation and the interest of the Assembly. I would consider that on the grounds of removal from the position as Speaker. I agree that he cannot be charged or penalized, but I approve of the Monarch Executive (Fortwhile) nominating Saint Ehm for removal of his position due to his motions done alone and without representing the Assembly, and letting legal processions follow as directed by the Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by Fortwhile on Nov 17, 2017 3:15:36 GMT
To be clear Honorable Justices, I do not believe that the Constitution requires that there be formal "charges" filed in order to remove an official from office.
All that is required is that the Upper House, renamed the Parliament, vote in the affirmative by a 2/3rds vote. My understanding is that this is not a matter for the courts, but is a political question to be considered by the Parliament.
Respectfully, If your ruling is creating precedent that the High Court must approve the charges of an official before a removal proceeding can be considered — which it seems to be doing — I would like to file notice to appeal that judgment, as I believe it has no constitutional backing.
|
|
|
Post by southernaurgediam on Nov 17, 2017 3:29:39 GMT
Your majesty, I apologize for any confusion I might have caused. I wasn't acting in my official capacity as a justice. I was simply suggesting that this resolution would benefit from evidence of Saint Ehm failing to uphold his duty to represent the interests of the Assembly of All (for example, did he inform you of the passing or failing of resolutions?) Rest assured, I support removing him from as much as you do, I simply want to make as strong a case as possible to the other members of Parliament. (I do see where the confusion would arise, one doesn't usually precede their opinion with, "This is my official judgement.")
|
|
|
Post by Fortwhile on Nov 17, 2017 4:04:07 GMT
Your majesty, I apologize for any confusion I might have caused. I wasn't acting in my official capacity as a justice. I was simply suggesting that this resolution would benefit from evidence of Saint Ehm failing to uphold his duty to represent the interests of the Assembly of All (for example, did he inform you of the passing or failing of resolutions?) Rest assured, I support removing him from as much as you do, I simply want to make as strong a case as possible to the other members of Parliament. (I do see where the confusion would arise, one doesn't usually precede their opinion with, "This is my official judgement.") Got it. Understood. I appreciate your counsel, I was just confused!
|
|
|
Post by southernaurgediam on Nov 17, 2017 5:21:50 GMT
Off topic, but do you know how to bring a bill in Parliament to a vote? There's nothing in the constitution and I can't find any precedent.
|
|
|
Post by Fortwhile on Nov 17, 2017 5:41:49 GMT
Without additional procedure legislation to clarify, I would assume the Prime Minister calls the vote based on this section of the Constitution:
|
|
|
Post by thechampion on Nov 17, 2017 5:54:44 GMT
hm yes this seems like a good diea
|
|
|
Post by southernaurgediam on Nov 17, 2017 5:57:16 GMT
Ah, that would make sense. Thanks. (If my legislature reform amendment is ever voted on, I'll introduce rules of order that include voting procedures for each house)
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this resolution be brought to an immediate vote. (the term President references the presiding officer here.) Bymaria
|
|
|
Post by Bymaria on Nov 17, 2017 7:22:32 GMT
OOC: Sorry for not being so active this week, but I have been occupied with a debating competition, but it is over now and luckily I am through to the next round! From what I understand, you now want me to bring the resolution to remove Saint Ehm before the parliament to vote.
|
|